11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging actual fraud from credit-card charges to prove that the debtor used the card without a subjective intent to repay.

FIA Card Services N.A. v. Quinn (In re Quinn) · filed 2013-04-30(a)(2)(A)

To establish actual fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor must prove a debtor used a credit card without the actual, subjective intent to pay the debt thereby incurred.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit-card charges from discharge when the creditor proves that the debtor incurred them through fraudulent representations about an intent to repay.

American Express Bank, F.S.B. v. Mowdy (In re Mowdy) · filed 2015-01-16(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons set forth above, American Express has proven each element of its cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of American Express and against Mowdy excepting an aggregate of $100,698.64 ($98,881.34 in credit card charges and $1,817.30 for attorney fees and costs), plus interest, from' Mowdy’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except credit card charges from discharge as actual fraud when the debtor intends to pay them, even if the debtor expects to breach the card agreement.

American Express Centurion Bank v. Allen (In re Allen) · filed 2015-04-01(a)(2)(A)

The fact that a credit card user makes charges in actual or contemplated breach of the terms of the credit agreement does not constitute actual fraud within the meaning of § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to have obtained the credit through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

A/C Supply, Inc. v. Botsay · filed 2022-01-11(a)(2)(A)

But the TBE Deed was executed nearly six years after the Note, meaning the TBE Deed could not have been a false misrepresentation, false pretense, or fraud by which Botsay obtained the credit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires courts assessing a credit card debtor’s intent to deceive to consider a genuine expectation that a third party or collateral would pay the debt.

The First Citizens National Bank of Upper Sandusky v. Mann · filed 2022-09-30(a)(2)(A)

This court holds that when there is a real subjective expectation that the debt will be paid, either by a third party or by use of collateral, that belief is part of the totality of the circumstances the court should consider in determining whether or not a credit card debtor possessed an intent to deceive a creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except credit card debt from discharge to prove the debtor intended to deceive it.

First National Bank of Omaha v. Miles · filed 2024-01-24(a)(2)(A)

Considering the totality of the circumstances and the relevant factors, Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to prove Debtor’s intent to deceive Plaintiff, an essential element of its claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except credit card debt from discharge for fraud to plead facts supporting an inference of fraudulent intent.

American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Henein · filed 2001-01-18(a)(2)(A)

Baldly asserting the legal elements of a claim for fraud without the necessary factual allegations is not enough to survive a motion to dismiss. ... Accordingly, because American Express has failed to allege fraud with the requisite particularity, the appeal is dismissed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor did not intend to repay credit card charges when incurred to except the debt from discharge.

At&T Universal Card Services Corp. v. Williams (Williams) · filed 1997-11-06(a)(2)(A)

In general, courts hold credit card debts to be dischargeable absent a determination that the debtor did not intend to repay the charges when they were incurred.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) allows a surety that pays a nondischargeable tax debt to assert the government's right to have that debt excepted from discharge.

Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Norris (In Re Norris) · filed 1989-10-20(a)(1)(A)

The court will follow the majority rule that a surety’s subrogation to the government’s tax claim includes the right to have the debt excepted from discharge.

A partial assignment of a nondischargeable claim under § 523(a)(4) or (a)(6) does not change the claim’s dischargeability.

State Bar of California v. Tooks (In Re Tooks) · filed 1987-07-29(a)(4), (a)(6)

For the foregoing reasons, this court holds that the partial assignment of a non-dischargeable claim under § 523(a)(4) and § 523(a)(6) does not affect the discharge-ability of the claim.

Section 523(a)(6) preserves a debt’s nondischargeable character when a claim for willful and malicious injury is assigned to a new holder.

Florida v. Ticor Title Insurance Co. of California (In Re Florida) · filed 1994-03-03(a)(6)

Section 523(a)(6) determines the character of the debt by focusing analysis on the nature of the act from which the debt arises, not the identity of the claimant. The assignee of a claim takes the claim with all rights attendant, and therefore the nondischargeable character of the debt in the hands of the original claimant is transferable.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts embezzlement debts from discharge; a claim reinstated after the trustee recovers a repayment may be pursued against the debtor personally if the debt is found nondischargeable.

Busseto Foods, Inc. v. Laizure · filed 2008-11-17(a)(4)

“Any debt” is certainly broad enough to apply to personal claims, so if a claim is determined to be nondisehargeable, § 523 allows that claim to be brought against the individual debtor. Thus, if a § 550 claim is determined to be nondisehargeable under § 502(h), § 523 permits that reinstated claim to be brought against the debtor personally.

An assignee may pursue the discharge exception based on the original creditor’s reasonable reliance on a materially false written financial statement.

Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. · filed 2009-05-01(a)(2)(B)(iii)

That is, assuming New Falls was indeed the recipient of a general assignment of the original judgment, it can stand in the shoes of its assignor and pursue a non-dischargeability action under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows an assignee to seek a fraud exception to discharge based on the original creditor’s reliance on a false statement.

Turbo Aleae Investments, Inc. v. Borschow (In re Borschow) · filed 2012-02-08(a)(2)(A)

The Court agrees with the Ninth and Seventh Circuits and holds that an assignee of a debt can step into the shoes of the original creditor for purpose of § 523(a)(2)(A) — i.e. it is enough that the original creditor relied on the false statement.

An assignee may seek a nondischargeability determination under § 523(a)(2).

Pazdzierz v. First American Title Insurance (In Re Pazdzierz) · filed 2013-06-10(a)(2)(B)(iii)

Pazdzierz advances no compelling reason we should not join the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in concluding that assignees may seek non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a) does not prevent individuals from negotiating voluntary releases with creditors of claims that would otherwise be excepted from discharge.

Stein Mart, Inc. · filed 2021-03-29(a)

Further, the Third-Party Release releases claims against non-debtor individuals that would be excepted from discharge under § 523(a). However, nothing in § 1141(d)(3) or § 523(a) prevents Debtors or the non-debtor individuals from negotiating voluntary consensual releases with creditors.

An assignee of a loan has at least a colorable basis to assert a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim despite Nevada’s general bar on assigning fraud claims.

Kelly v. Cuomo · filed 2022-08-03(a)(2)(A)

So, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Congress’s intent with respect to assignment of very similar fraud claims, I cannot find that the bankruptcy court lacked any arguable basis to determine that Kelly had standing to assert his § 523(a)(2)(A) claims under an assigned loan.

Section 523(a)(6) allows an assignee of a validly assigned claim to rely on injuries to the assignor when seeking to except the debt from discharge.

Kerin Enterprises Holding Company, Ltd., as Succes v. Marklin · filed 2022-10-03(a)(6)

For these reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiff may rely on injuries to its assignor, as found by the state court, in this non-dischargeability action under § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A claimant has no right to a jury trial on the Section 523 dischargeability issue.

Rude v. Whitehorn (In Re Whitehorn) · filed 1989-02-16

Under previously cited cases, the claimant has no right to a jury trial on the § 523 dischargeability issue or the § 727 objection to discharge. ... At this time, the Court will bifurcate the trial and first try, non jury, the § 727 complaint and the § 523 dischargeability issue.

Section 523 dischargeability proceedings carry no statutory or Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Nickens v. Perry (In Re Perry) · filed 1990-03-01

I find that there is no statutory basis for a trial by jury on the issue of nondischarge-ability. ... Accordingly, there is no right to have the issue of dischargeability tried by a jury under the seventh amendment.

In a § 523(a)(2) dischargeability action, a debtor has no right to a jury trial on damages when the creditor filed a proof of claim; separate hearings on dischargeability and damages do not create that right.

Mid Island Equities Corp. v. Barral (In Re Barral) · filed 1992-05-04(a)(2)

The plaintiff, Mid Island Equities Corp. filed a complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) objecting to the dischargeability of its claim against the Chapter 7 debtor, John Joseph Barral. ... The fact that the court bifurcated the trial with respect to the plaintiff’s nondischargeability claim by putting off a hearing on damages until after a determination as to dischargeability does not mean that the debtor may claim a jury trial as to the issue of damages.

A § 523(a)(4) proceeding limited to the dischargeability of an established debt is equitable, so the debtor has no right to a jury trial.

Estate of Samson Ex Rel. Murphy v. Ward (In Re Ward) · filed 1995-04-28(a)(4)

Therefore, having again reviewed the decisions cited above, this Court confirms that the Complaint in this adversary proceeding sets forth an action to determine discharge-ability of a debt under § 523(a)(4) in which issues of liability and damages have been previously set by the stipulated judgment in State Court. Such an action is equitable rather than legal in nature. In addition, any right to assert a jury trial was waived by the circumstances under which the Defendant admitted liability and damages under the State Court Complaint and then voluntarily filed bankruptcy. This Court is now even more convinced that the Defendant is not entitled to a jury trial in this adversary proceeding.

A creditor has no right to a jury trial on the equitable determination of dischargeability under § 523(a)(6).

Leathem v. Von Volkmar (In Re Von Volkmar) · filed 1998-02-02(a)(6)

For reasons set forth herein, the Court strikes and denies the demand as a matter of right as it applies to the equitable determination of whether Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are discharge-able under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

A bankruptcy court may determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(6) without a jury.

Leathem v. Von Volkmar (In Re Von Volkmar) · filed 1998-03-03(a)(6)

Plaintiff can either ask the Court to make only a dischargeability determination from the bench or withdraw the entire action to the district court.

Section 523 dischargeability proceedings are equitable and are not triable by a jury in the Sixth Circuit.

Webb v. White (In Re White) · filed 1998-07-17

Secondly, dischargeability actions are not ones which may be tried by juries in the Sixth Circuit.

Section 523 dischargeability proceedings are equitable, so parties have no right to a jury trial even on liability issues.

Smith v. Bandy (In Re Bandy) · filed 1999-08-19

The plaintiffs are not entitled to a jury trial because dischargeability proceedings are equitable. In this context, even the liability issues are equitable.

A proceeding under Section 523(a)(2)(A) is equitable, so seeking money damages does not give a creditor a right to a jury trial.

Goodale v. Duffy (In Re Duffy) · filed 2004-09-21(a)(2)(A)

While the Plaintiff may argue that her claim is legal in nature because she seeks money damages, such an argument mis-eharaeterizes the kind of relief provided under Section 523(a)(2)(A). This is a complaint seeking a finding of nondischar-geablity of a debt, and requesting money damages does not change the equitable nature of the proceeding.

A chapter 7 debtor has no right to a jury trial to determine or liquidate a debt in a § 523 adversary proceeding that adjusts debtor-creditor relations.

Hickman v. Hana (In Re Hickman) · filed 2008-03-20

Hickman does not have a jury trial right with respect to the determination and liquidation of the amounts at issue in Hana’s § 523 adversary proceeding complaint because such claims are integral to the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

A debtor has no right to a jury trial in a § 523(a)(6) dischargeability proceeding because the determination is equitable.

Irvin v. Faller · filed 2015-05-07(a)(6)

Here, just like the plaintiff in In re Hallahan, Plaintiffs filed this adversary proceeding in Defendant’s Chapter 7 case to determine dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Determinations of discharge-ability are equitable proceedings and Plaintiffs are seeking an equitable remedy. See In re Hallahan, 936 F.2d at 1505. Thus, Defendant has no right to a jury trial in the dischargeability proceeding.

A debtor has no right to a jury trial on a claim that a debt is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6).

Pausch v. DiPiero (In re DiPiero) · filed 2016-07-05(a)(6)

Because DiPiero has no right to a jury trial on Pausch’s section 523(a)(6) claim, his jury demand will be stricken.

A debtor has no right to a jury trial on a § 523(a)(8) dischargeability claim.

Grabis v. Navient Solutions, LLC · filed 2020-12-11(a)(8)

The sole issue to be resolved under the Complaint, is whether the Debtor’s Student Loan Debt is discharged under §523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code. In applying the two-part test to the Complaint, the Court finds that a determination of nondischargeability “involves issues with an equitable history and for which there was no entitlement to a jury trial in courts of England prior to the merger of law and equity.” ... The Debtor has no right to trial by jury under the Complaint.

Section 523 does not except a debtor’s personal obligation on a secured loan from discharge merely because the creditor holds a security interest.

In Re Crouch · filed 1989-04-15

No provision exists in § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code which exempts from discharge in the instant Chapter 7 case the personal obligation owed by the Debtors to Colgasco on their secured automobile loan.

Section 523 does not except the condominium association fees at issue from discharge.

Matter of Garcia · filed 1993-10-08

In this case, the debt owed to Oak-brook is not an exception to discharge as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts a tax debt from discharge if the tax is of a kind specified in § 507(a)(8), even when the claim is secured.

Gust v. United States Ex Rel. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Gust) · filed 1999-04-12(a)(1)(A)

Here, the Bankruptcy Court was correct in concluding that “Section 523(a)(1)(A) addresses ‘debt’ arising from ‘a tax’, ‘of the kind’ specified in § 507(a)(8), not debt evidenced by a claim described in § 507(a)(8).”

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts a tax debt of the kind specified in § 507(a)(8) from discharge even when the tax claim is secured.

Gust v. United States Ex Rel. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Gust) · filed 1999-12-09(a)(1)(A)

Here, the Bankruptcy Court was correct in concluding that "Section 523(a)(1)(A) addresses 'debt' arising from 'a tax', 'of the kind' specified in § 507(a)(8), not debt evidenced by a claim described in § 507(a)(8)." In re Gust, 229 B.R. at 47.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts unpaid withholding taxes from discharge under a confirmed Chapter 11 plan whether or not the tax claim is secured.

Miller v. United States · filed 2004-04-13(a)(1)(A)

Because the literal text of §§ 523(a)(1)(A) and 507(a)(8) unambiguously supports the conclusion reached by the Eleventh Circuit in Gust, and the legislative purpose underlying the Code provisions would be frustrated unnecessarily by the tortured rationale of the Tenth Circuit in Victor, we join the Eleventh Circuit in concluding that the interplay among §§ 1141(d)(2), 523(a)(1)(A), and 507(a)(8), renders an IRS claim for unpaid withholding taxes nondischargeable by a confirmed Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, whether or not that claim was secured.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) can except a tax debt from discharge even when the government holds a secured claim.

Barranco v. United States (In Re Barranco) · filed 2007-07-03(a)(1)(A)

However, this court finds that the language of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1) which excepts from discharge “any debt — (1) for tax ... (A) of the kinds and for the period specified in § 507(a)(8) of this Title, ...” points to the “kind of tax” and not the “kind of claim” as determinative of the discharge issue.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes fraud debts nondischargeable, but that status does not prevent a debtor from claiming a § 522 homestead exemption or avoiding a judicial lien that impairs it.

In the Matter of Harold P. Walters and Patricia A. Walters, His Wife, Debtors v. United States National Bank in Johnstow · filed 1989-07-20(a)(2)(A)

The bank has referred us to no legislative history, nor have we found any, suggesting that section 523 was intended, generally, to trump section 522. Indeed, had that been the intention the exceptions in section 522(c) would have been redundant.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for money or property obtained through actual fraud nondischargeable.

National Acceptance Co. of America v. Bathalter (In Re Bathalter) · filed 1990-12-20(a)(2)(A)

An application of § 523 to the established facts, provided in the Record and affirmed here, can lead to no other conclusion than that the Appellant obtained money or property through fraudulent conduct. As such it is the ruling of this Court that Appellant’s debt is not dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained through fraud from discharge; a prior fraud judgment can establish the fraud through collateral estoppel.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Potter (In Re Potter) · filed 1995-08-03(a)(2)(A)

Because it has already been decided that the $4.9 million was obtained through fraud, this judgment debt is now held to be non-dischargea-ble under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a securities fraud disgorgement debt from discharge when the prior judgment establishes fraud and justifiable reliance.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Hodge (In Re Hodge) · filed 1998-02-04(a)(2)(A)

In the present case, this Court finds that the judgment in the District Court Action satisfies the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). As set forth above in this Court’s findings of fact, and as set forth in the orders and judgments in the District Court Action, Hodge was found guilty of obtaining money by false representations and actual fraud. The findings in the District Court Action are sufficient to meet the requirement that the individual investors “justifiably relied” on the statements made by Hodge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts the debts for excess inventory losses and kickbacks from discharge.

Clark & Gregory, Inc. v. Hanson (In re Hanson) · filed 1998-11-24(a)(2)(A)

2. The debt of $645,903.63 representing the excess inventory portion of C & G’s claim is hereby determined to be nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Supplemental Opinion and Order shall be served by first-class United States mail, upon Edward Clark of Clark & Gregory, Inc., Robert E.L. Wright, Esq., John R. Hanson, and Charles S. Rominger, Esq.

Section 523(a)(15) allows only a debtor’s spouse, former spouse, or child to seek an exception to discharge; a former spouse’s probate estate lacks standing.

Hisaw v. Hisaw (In Re Poppleton) · filed 2008-02-11(a)(15)

Standing to pursue an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(15) is prescribed by the Code, not state law. This Court is persuaded by the analysis set forth in Bryant and the majority line of cases holding that, under the Code, only a spouse, former spouse or child of the debt- or may file a complaint under § 523(a)(15).

Section 523(a)(15) permits only a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor to challenge discharge; a deceased former spouse’s estate lacks standing.

Estate of Bryant v. Bryant (In Re Bryant) · filed 2001-01-29(a)(15)

This Court will follow the majority of cases that have considered the issue of standing in § 523(a)(15) cases and holds that only a spouse, former spouse or child of the Debtor may file a complaint under this statute. In this case, Plaintiff represents the estate of Debtor’s former spouse, not the former spouse himself. Although Plaintiff is authorized by Kentucky law to file a suit on behalf of the decedent, Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the discharge of the property settlement agreement herein under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Section 523(c)(1) permits a state to pursue dischargeability claims for injured citizens when state law authorizes it to collect their debts on their behalf.

Illinois Ex Rel. Ryan v. Volpert (In Re Volpert) · filed 1994-11-23(c)(1)

Since the State is entitled to collect on behalf of its citizens, its claims for their behalf make it a “creditor to whom such debt is owed” for the benefit of those citizens within the meaning of § 523(c)(1).

Section 523 permits a Chapter 7 trustee who is a creditor of another bankruptcy estate to seek a determination that a debt owed to the trustee’s estate is nondischargeable.

Berkowitz v. Muller (In Re Muller) · filed 1990-02-27

Clearly Berkowitz, as trustee of the Gwynn estate, is a creditor of the Muller estate and if trustee Berkowitz can prove the compensatory and punitive damage he alleges in his pleadings, he may recover those damages for the benefit of the Gwynn estate. Accordingly, Muller’s motion to dismiss the second and third claims for relief on the grounds of lack of standing and lack of damages is denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a debt owed to the plaintiff before that plaintiff can seek to have it declared nondischargeable.

District 5, United Mine Workers v. Weiss (In re Weiss) · filed 1991-07-09(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiffs cannot bring an action to have a debt declared non-dischargeable when there is no such debt or liability owing to them.

Section 523(c)(1) permits a state with parens patriae standing to seek a determination of nondischargeability on behalf of consumers owed restitution.

Colorado Ex Rel. Early v. Trujillo (In Re Trujillo) · filed 1992-01-21(c)(1)

This Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the majority, and finds that the State of Colorado has standing to bring this adversary proceeding on behalf of the individual consumers under the doctrine of parens patriae.

Section 523(c)(1) allows a creditor with a right to payment to seek a determination that a debt is nondischargeable, even if someone else was defrauded.

Federal Trade Commission v. Austin (In Re Austin) · filed 1992-04-07(c)(1)

Thus, under § 523(c)(1), the only standing requirement for a party seeking to have a debt declared nondis-chargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) is that the party must have a right to receive payment on the debt in question.

A creditor with an unperfected security interest may seek a dischargeability determination under § 523(a)(6) if it retains a claim against the debtor.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Dotson · filed 1993-03-04(a)(6)

This Court holds that GMAC has standing to seek determination of the discharge-ability of the Dotsons’ debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and Bankruptcy Rule 4007(a) despite the unperfected nature of its claim.

Section 523(a)(5) does not allow attorneys or experts to contest dischargeability of a divorce fee award made to the former spouse when they have no right to enforce the award.

In Re Perlin · filed 1994-07-12(a)(5)

We conclude that the plaintiffs lack standing to contest the dischargeability of the fee award because the debtor owes the debt in question to his former spouse, not to the plaintiffs.

Section 523(c)(1) does not require debtors to bring an adversary proceeding for their discharge to take effect as to debts covered by other § 523(a) grounds.

Burke v. United States · filed 1995-11-17(c)(1)

The IRS incorrectly interprets section 523(c) to require that the DEBTORS institute an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability under all other section 523(a) grounds in order for the discharge of section 727 and the permanent injunction of section 524 to attach.

Section 523(a)(4) allows a person who paid a tenant’s security deposit claim to pursue a nondischargeability claim as the tenant’s subrogee.

Santa v. Lebner (In Re Lebner) · filed 1996-05-21(a)(4)

Additionally, as discussed below, although Santa has standing as a subrogee of Nugent to bring this adversary proceeding under section 523(a)(4) for violations of G.L. c. 186, § 15B, the Court cannot make a similar finding with respect to other class members.

Section 523(c)(1) does not allow a trustee who is not owed the debt to seek an exception to discharge on an individual creditor’s behalf.

Schwab v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 1997-02-06(c)(1)

The plain reading of the language of Section 523(e)(1) and Rule 4007(a) compels this court to find that the Trustee does not have standing to initiate a dischargeability complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c).

Section 523(a)(15) does not let professionals who represented a debtor in a marital dissolution seek to except their fees from discharge.

Woodruff, O'Hair & Posner, Inc. v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1997-02-25(a)(15)

It necessarily follows that the professionals who represent a debtor in a pre-petition marital dissolution proceeding can never be granted relief in, and consequently will never have standing to bring, an action under section 523(a)(15).

Section 523(a)(15) lets a nondebtor spouse seek to except a property settlement debt from discharge; it gives the debtor no remedy to establish dischargeability.

In Re Gomez · filed 1997-03-17(a)(15)

That provision of the Bankruptcy Code is designed to be used by a non-debtor spouse seeking to have a property settlement that might ordinarily be deemed a dischargeable debt to be deemed non-dischargeable, and is not a debtor’s remedy.

Section 523(a)(15) allows only a debtor’s spouse, former spouse or dependant to object to discharge of a debt under that provision.

Brian M. Urban Co. v. Wenneman (In Re Wenneman) · filed 1997-06-19(a)(15)

Therefore, § 523(a)(15) must be read, in accordance with its legislative history, as conferring standing to object to discharge of a debt only upon a spouse, former spouse or dependant of the debtor.

Section 523(c)(1) allows a government agency with authority to seek restitution for injured consumers to bring a dischargeability complaint as the creditor to whom the debt is owed.

In Re Taibbi · filed 1997-09-25(c)(1)

OCA’s ability to enforce such claims on behalf of defrauded consumers in the state court leads this Court to conclude that it is the “creditor to whom the debt is owed” within the meaning of section 523(c)(1).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a government agency with an enforceable disgorgement claim to seek a determination of nondischargeability even when a receiver is designated to collect the funds.

Securities Exchange Commission v. Cross (In Re Cross) · filed 1998-02-23(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the Commission is a judgment creditor who has a “right to payment” with standing to file a § 523(a)(2)(A) action against the Debtor.

A person whose claim belongs to his bankruptcy estate lacks standing to seek a § 523(a)(5) nondischargeability ruling; the trustee holds the interest.

Cundiff v. Cundiff (In Re Cundiff) · filed 1998-12-21(a)(5)

Standing to pursue the statutory cause of action in § 523(a)(5) is a question of federal law. ... The attorney fees award is an asset of Cundiffs bankruptcy estate. The only party with a present interest in that judgment is the trustee in that case. Because the Appellee has no interest in the judgment, as a matter of federal law, he has no standing to pursue collection of the award, including filing a complaint for nondischargeability in Boggs’ bankruptcy case.

Section 523(c)(1) allows a federal agency authorized to enforce repayment for others to seek a dischargeability determination even when the agency is not owed the money itself.

Herman v. Egea (In Re Egea) · filed 1999-03-24(c)(1)

The Secretary’s inherent ability to enforce those orders qualifies her as “a creditor to whom such debt is owed.”

Section 523(c)(1) allows an administrator authorized by state law to enforce a claim to seek a determination of nondischargeability, even when others will ultimately receive payment.

Fezler v. Davis · filed 1999-10-27(c)(1)

Accordingly, we conclude that, as Administratrix, Ms. Fezler is in her own right “a creditor to whom such [wrongful death] debt is owed” under the Bankruptcy Code for purposes of § 523(c) and has standing to object to the discharge of the wrongful death claims in bankruptcy.

Section 523(c)(1) allows only the creditor to whom a debt is owed to challenge its dischargeability for fraud or misrepresentation.

Coleman v. Miller (Miller) · filed 2001-11-29(c)(1)

In order to challenge the dischargeability of a debt resulting from fraud or misrepresentation under § 523(a)(2)(A), “the creditor to whom such debt is owed” must request exception of that debt from discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)(1). Thus, the only party that has standing to challenge the dischargeability of a debt is the party to whom the debt is owed.

Section 523(a)(15) does not give a guardian ad litem firm standing to seek nondischargeability of its fees when the debtor’s spouse and children are not alleged to be jointly liable.

Baroway & Dawson, P.C. v. Euell (In Re Euell) · filed 2002-01-02(a)(15)

The Firm does not have standing to pursue a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Section 523(c)(1) prevents a creditor from seeking an exception to discharge for a debt owed to another creditor.

Greater Illinois Title Co. v. Terranova (In Re Terranova) · filed 2003-11-12(c)(1)

The complaint here does not show that GITC or its subrogor has or had some ownership or possessory interest in the sale proceeds. Absent this interest, § 523(c)(1) prevents GITC from asserting the rights of Bank One.

Section 523(c) allows only a creditor owed the debt to seek a determination that it is nondischargeable for willful and malicious injury.

Solomon v. Jarrett (In Re Jarrett) · filed 2003-12-18(c)

Only a creditor of the debtor has standing to pursue a nondischargeable debt arising out of a willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(19) permits a state securities regulator to seek a dischargeability determination for a restitution obligation arising from securities fraud.

Idaho, Department of Finance v. McClung (In Re McClung) · filed 2004-01-27(a)(19)

Broader public policy considerations also support the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff has standing, not just as a creditor, to pursue an action under § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(4) allows the Secretary of Labor to seek a determination that a restitution debt arising from alleged fiduciary defalcation is nondischargeable when the Secretary holds a claim against the debtor.

Chao v. Duncan (Duncan) · filed 2004-03-24(a)(4)

The Court concludes that the Secretary has standing to bring this Adversary Proceeding to establish the nondischargeability of debt pursuant to section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a) permits only a creditor owed the debt to seek a determination that the debt is nondischargeable.

Shelton v. Wilson (In re Wilson) · filed 2004-06-22(a)

Only a creditor can initiate a proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) to determine the non-dis-chargeability of a debt, and that debt must be owed to that creditor.

A plaintiff seeking a determination under § 523(a)(2)(A) must prove it is a creditor with an enforceable claim against the debtor.

Premier Capital, LLC v. Gavin (In Re Gavin) · filed 2004-12-16(a)(2)(A)

Without an enforceable obligation Premier has no claim, and therefore is not a creditor for purposes of Bankruptcy Rule 4007(a). Accordingly, it has no standing to bring a § 523(a)(2)(A) action against the Debtor.

Section 523(a)(15) does not allow third-party creditors to assert the divorce-debt exception through equitable subrogation.

Gabel v. Olson (In Re Olson) · filed 2006-10-19(a)(15)

Thus, even assuming the facts set forth in the Amended Complaint are true, the Plaintiffs do not have standing to prosecute an action against the Debtor under § 523(a)(15), since they are neither the spouse, former spouse, or dependent of the Debtor.

Section 523 permits the SEC, as a creditor, to file a complaint seeking a determination that a debt is nondischargeable.

Sherman v. SEC · filed 2007-07-03

The SEC was, and is, eligible as a creditor to file complaints under § 523.

A state attorney general may pursue a § 523 dischargeability objection on behalf of consumers when the state has a sufficient interest in their economic well-being.

Massachusetts v. Bartel (In Re Bartel) · filed 2009-04-13

The Court concludes that the Commonwealth has standing for several reasons. ... Here the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting the economic well-being of consumers and ensuring that those who conduct business within the state do not jeopardize that well-being is sufficient.

A party bringing a nondischargeability action under § 523(a) must be a creditor of the debtor.

Alvarado Land Development, Inc. v. Sewell (In Re Sewell) · filed 2009-09-02(c)

The only requirement for standing to bring a nondischargeability action based on § 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is that the action must be brought by a creditor.

Section 523(a) dischargeability can be determined after the validity and amount of the underlying claims and counterclaims are resolved.

Banbury v. Banbury (In Re Banbury) · filed 2010-05-25(a)

Before this Court may properly determine whether Hunter’s claims against the Debtor are excepted from discharge under Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a determination must first be made as to the validity and amount of those claims and the validity and amount of the Debtor’s counterclaims against Hunter.

Section 523(c)(1) permits only the creditor to whom a debt is owed to seek a determination that the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2) or (a)(4).

White v. Whittle (In Re Whittle) · filed 2011-05-17(c)(1)

Section 523(c)(1) states that a debtor will be discharged from a debt of the kind specified in § 523(a)(2) and (a)(4), unless “on request of the creditor to whom such debt is owed,” the bankruptcy court determines the debt is not to be discharged. Thus, only creditors to whom a debt is owed may assert that a debt is nondischargeable in bankruptcy.

A § 523(a)(2)(A) claim concerns a specific debt, so substitute plaintiffs cannot pursue the original creditor’s claim concerning that debt.

Cantwell & Cantwell v. Vicario · filed 2011-12-22(a)(2)(A)

As the Abrahams’ claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) was personal to the debt John Vicario owed to them, Plaintiffs could not substitute in as plaintiffs for that claim.

Section 523(c) allows a creditor with a claim against the debtor’s estate to request an exception from discharge.

Hurbert v. Cheeks (In Re Cheeks) · filed 2012-03-07(c)

It is clear that Plaintiff has a claim against Defendant’s estate; he obtained a default money judgment against Defendant in the Northern District of Illinois in the amount of $278,730. (Compl. Ex. F) He is, therefore, a creditor of the Debtor so that he may object to the Debtor’s discharge.

Section 523(c)(1) requires a plaintiff seeking a determination that a debt is nondischargeable to be a creditor to whom the debt is owed.

Bankers Healthcare Group, Inc. v. Bilfield (In re Bilfield) · filed 2013-04-02(c)(1)

Consequently, standing to bring those claims requires that the plaintiff be a creditor.

An attorney expressly designated to receive a divorce decree’s fee award may pursue its nondischargeability under § 523(a)(5).

Collins v. Solomon (In re Collins) · filed 2013-10-29(a)(5)

Thus, regardless of whether the Final Divorce Decree is construed to create either a first- or a third-party obligation on the part of Michael Collins to Solomon (as in Spong and Gwinn), the bankruptcy court correctly found that Solomon has standing to assert her claim for the attorney’s fees award in an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(c)(1) permits a creditor to seek a determination that a debt owed to that creditor is excepted from discharge.

Skinner v. Skinner (In re Skinner) · filed 2014-10-08(c)(1)

Section 523(c) provides the procedure for the objection to the discharge of a specific debt and provides that, upon request of a creditor, this Court may determine whether a debt owed to that creditor may be excepted from discharge. ... Therefore, this Court must dismiss Counts I, II and IV because the Plaintiff lacks standing to object to the Debtor’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(7) permits a private PAGA plaintiff to seek a nondischargeability determination for civil penalties payable to the state.

Medina v. Vander Poel · filed 2015-01-21(a)(7)

Section 523(a)(7) limits discharge-ability to fines “payable to” a government unit. It does not limit who may bring such-an action.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a successor bank to bring a nondischargeability action based on a fraud claim it acquired through a merger.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lovett (In re Lovett) · filed 2016-11-02(a)(2)(A)

Under the National Banking Act and Georgia law, the right to prosecute a claim survives a merger between banks, and the successor bank may prosecute such a claim. Therefore, Wells Fargo has standing to bring its non-dischargeability action under § 523(a)(2)(A).

A student loan dischargeability claim under § 523(a)(8) fails against an entity that neither owns nor holds the loans.

Kleckner v. AES (In re Kleckner) · filed 2016-11-07(a)(8)

Therefore, AES has established that it is not the owner or holder of the Debtor’s student loans, negating an element of the Debtor’s nondischargeability claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(3) allows a creditor to seek a dischargeability determination at any time; its exception is not subject to the deadline for claims under § 523(c).

In re Sims · filed 2017-09-21(a)(3)

The exception to discharge under § 523(a)(3) is not among the exceptions enumerated in § 523(c), and therefore not subject to the deadline prescribed in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c).

Section 523(c) permits a personally defrauded creditor to seek a fraud exception to discharge when he routed his own funds through his corporation and the debtor’s fraud directly injured him.

Fridman v. Rixham (In re Rixham) · filed 2017-11-29(c)

Hence the question becomes whether the word “debt” in Section 523(c) should be interpreted expansively enough in this context to include the injury inflicted by Ms, Rixham’s participation in the underlying scheme. The Court has wrestled with the pros and cons but in the end concludes that (a) Mr. Fridman was personally defrauded, (b) Ms. Rixham took his money to be used for her own personal benefit, and (c) the debt therefore must be excepted from her discharge.

Section 523(c) allows creditors, but not Chapter 7 trustees, to request determinations of whether covered debts are dischargeable.

Cyrnek v. Oliva (In re Oliva) · filed 2018-10-23(c)

This Rule is consistent with § 523(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, which also only allows creditors to request determinations regarding the dischargeability of certain debts.

Section 523(c)(1) requires the creditor owed a debt to request that the debt be excepted from discharge.

In re: Joan Kathryn Livdahl · filed 2019-04-19(c)(1)

To challenge the dischargeability of a debt resulting from fraud or misrepresentation under § 523(a)(2)(A), "the creditor to whom such debt is owed" must request exception of that debt from discharge.

Section 523 requires a plaintiff seeking to except a debt from discharge to establish standing and an enforceable obligation owed by the debtor.

Girouard v. Cestaro (In re Cestaro) · filed 2019-03-14

The record here simply fails to support the contention that there was an enforceable obligation owed by Mike to Girouard. ... his claims under § 523 and § 727 must fail for that reason alone.

Section 523(c) requires a creditor to request an exception from discharge for certain debts; the deadline to file that request or seek an extension runs from the first date set for the creditors’ meeting.

In re Bressler · filed 2019-05-10(c)

Under section 523(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is discharged from debts-even debts based on fraud, false representations, defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, or willful and malicious injury (all providing a basis to deny a discharge under section 523(a) )-unless a creditor requests that such debts be excepted from the discharge. ... The Court today sides with the majority of courts in holding that the deadline to file an objection, or to seek an extension, expires 60 days after the first date set for the 341 Meeting.

Section 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) do not let a bank except its loan from discharge merely because the debtor used the proceeds to pay obligations to a former spouse.

North Shore Bank, a Co-Operative Bank v. Bona · filed 2019-11-06(a)(5), (a)(15)

The use of loan proceeds to pay domestic support obligations does not automatically convert a dischargeable debt to a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(5). ... Therefore, as a matter of law, the Bank does not possess the requisite standing to pursue the subject action under § 523(a)(15).

Section 523 permits only the creditor to whom a debt is owed to seek an exception from discharge for that debt.

George N. Pile and Reba A. Pile · filed 2020-03-26(c)(2)

As for the first premise, Section 523(c)(2) provides in pertinent part that the debtor shall be discharged from debts based upon fraud, “unless, on request of the creditor to whom such debt is owed . . . the court determines such debt to be excepted from discharge.” A statute could not be plainer or more explicit, and as Ms. Robinson is not MECU, she does not have standing to have the MECU Loan excepted from Ms. Pile’s discharge.

Section 523(c)(1) allows a creditor to seek an exception to discharge only for a debt owed to that creditor.

Fullen v. Riffle, Jr. · filed 2020-10-29(c)(1)

Thus, a plaintiff does not have standing to object to dischargeability of a debt unless the debt is to her. ... Ultimately, the Plaintiffs are creditors of the Debtor and have standing to bring their non-dischargeability action with respect to the October 28 Judgment and proof of claim.

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor to obtain a determination that a debt covered by § 523(a)(2) or (a)(4) is excepted from discharge; otherwise, the debt is discharged.

In re Dana Kim Shelton · filed 2021-10-18(c)(1)

In the absence of a finding of non-dischargeability, the debtor is discharged from a debt of the kind specified in §§ 523(a)(2) and (a)(4).

Section 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) do not let a former spouse’s parent assert the former spouse’s divorce-related nondischargeability claims.

Frankenberger v. Cimba · filed 2022-02-15(a)(5), (a)(15)

These claims could only be brought by Amy not Denis. The very terms of the statutes apply to “domestic support obligations owed to a spouse, former spouse or child of the debtor,” none of which apply to Denis.

Section 523(c) permits a creditor with a disputed claim that has not been disallowed to seek a determination that the debt is nondischargeable.

Fanale v. Schlomer · filed 2025-06-27(c)

Thus, in addition to constitutional standing, Fanale has statutory standing to object to discharge of his claim because he is listed as a creditor in the Defendant’s bankruptcy case and filed a claim that has not been disallowed.

A creditor may pursue an exception to discharge under Section 523(a).

INDVR Brands, Inc. v. Mascio · filed 2025-08-08(c)(1)

Creditors plainly have standing to pursue Section 727 and 523(a) claims against bankruptcy debtors. 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(c)(1) and 727(c)(1).

Section 523(c)(1) permits a creditor owed a fraud debt to seek a dischargeability determination, even if that creditor was not a party to the underlying sale agreement.

Sanders · filed 2025-10-17(c)(1)

A complaint to determine dischargeability of a debt under § 523(a)(2) must be brought by “the creditor to whom such debt is owed.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)(1). ... Appellant’s argument that Brooks cannot qualify as a creditor because he was not a party to the agreement whereby the business was sold is inapposite. The bankruptcy court determined appellant owes Brooks a debt for fraud, a tort. Thus, it is of no import that Brooks is not a party to the sale agreement.

Section 523(c)(1) permits only the creditor owed a debt described in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) to request a determination that the debt is excepted from discharge.

Vigil · filed 2026-05-04(c)(1)

Indeed, under § 523(c)(1) only a creditor may bring a request for a dischargeability determination for debts specified in § 523(a), subsections (2), (4), and (6).

A plaintiff must be a creditor with a claim against the debtor to have standing to seek a nondischargeability determination under § 523.

HINTON · filed 2026-06-15

In order to have ... standing to pursue their 11 U.S.C. §§ 523 and/or 727 claims, the Hintons must be creditors ... within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(10).

Section 523(a)(6) requires a creditor claiming injury to property to have an interest in that property; requesting judicial aid to levy on the property does not itself create that interest.

Wisner v. The Piedmont Bank · filed 2023-03-30(a)(6)

The request for judicial aid, by itself, does not give the creditor an interest in the certificated security necessary to support a § 523(a)(6) claim.

For claims based on taking or converting property, § 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) require the creditor to allege an interest in that property.

Chicago City Bank & Trust Co. v. Jaffe (In Re Jaffe) · filed 1990-03-15(a)(4), (a)(6)

In order to invoke section 523(a)(4) or section 523(a)(6), then the Bank must allege that it had an interest in property wrongfully taken, embezzled or converted by the Debtor.

Section 523(a)(4)'s embezzlement exception requires misappropriation of the creditor's property.

Aristocrat Lakewood Nursing Home v. Dryja (In Re Dryja) · filed 2001-02-26(a)(4)

Whether the property was misappropriated or not, it has not been shown that the property at issue belongs to Aristocrat, or that it possesses a specific lien interest in Hahn’s bank account. Aristocrat cited no authority for the proposition a debt may be declared nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4) where the creditor was an unaffected third party to an alleged embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) require the creditor to have an interest in the property at issue.

Structured Investments Co. v. Price (In Re Price) · filed 2004-07-22(a)(4), (a)(6)

Both sections refer to a debtor’s conduct in dealing with a creditor’s interest in property. Unless Structured owned an interest in Price’s pension rights, whether as collateral or through an outright sale, there can be no violation under these provisions of section 523.

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a conversion debt from discharge when the creditor had no property interest in the allegedly converted property.

Knight v. Eppard (In re Eppard) · filed 2012-11-14(a)(6)

This court has found that Ms. Knight did not have a property interest in the future tax refunds. The court therefore concludes that the debtor’s use of the tax refunds is not conversion of the creditor’s property and is not a non-disehargeable debt under Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) permits an embezzlement claim when the creditor has a sufficient property interest in the appropriated property to bring a conversion claim.

Kapitus Servicing, Inc. v. Monreal · filed 2026-06-18(a)(4)

The Court agrees with the majority courts’ analysis but will refine and refocus the rule: a creditor must have sufficient property interest in the allegedly embezzled property such that the creditor could bring a conversion claim.

Section 523 permits discharge of debts owed to state and local governments unless a narrow exception applies.

Claussen v. Brookings County (In Re Claussen) · filed 1990-09-26(a)

The case law, the legislative history, and 11 U.S.C. § 523 gleam clear Congress’ intent to make debts owed federal, state, and local governments discharge-able with narrow exceptions.

Section 523(a)(18) does not require an assignment of support rights for an enforceable government support debt to be nondischargeable.

Leibowitz v. County of Orange (In Re Leibowitz) · filed 1999-02-22(a)(18)

We note at the outset that the complaint for non-dischargeability was not grounded on § 523(a)(5) but rather on § 523(a)(18). This distinction is critical. Whereas § 523(a)(5) required that the debt owing to the state had to be assigned pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(26), there is no such requirement in § 523(a)(18). Rather, § 523(a)(18) merely requires that an enforceable debt be owed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts fraudulently obtained benefits and related interest from discharge, while § 523(a)(7) excepts punitive penalties payable to a government agency.

Michigan v. Green (In re Green) · filed 2016-07-29

The court further concludes that the debts for restitution and statutory interest are excepted from the Debtor’s discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) because the overpaid benefits were obtained by the Debtor’s fraud, and that the statutory penalties are excepted from the Debtor’s discharge under § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except statutory penalties and collection fees arising from fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits from a Chapter 13 discharge.

Colorado v. Wine (In re Wine) · filed 2016-09-30(a)(2)(A)

The State has pled a legally sufficient claim under Section 523(a)(2)(A) for the nondischargeability of (1) $9,056 of overpaid unemployment compensation; (2) $5,706.35 of penalties; and (3) $3,690.58 of collection fees.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud penalty from discharge when the penalty arises from money obtained by fraud, even if the penalty also falls within § 523(a)(7).

Kozlowski v. Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency · filed 2016-10-28(a)(2)(A)

In the instant action, the fraud penalty assessed by MUIA against Kozlowski is traceable to his alleged fraud and thus that debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a government penalty from discharge when the fraud was perpetrated on others and the government suffered no pecuniary injury.

United States of America v. Fusion Connect, Inc. · filed 2020-07-09(a)(2)(A)

The Court agrees with the reasoning of Exide and concludes that section 523(a)(2)(A), and hence section 1141(d)(6)(A), does not reach the FCC Penalty.

Section 523(c)'s reference to a creditor does not bar an appropriate class action to determine dischargeability.

Dickinson v. Duck (In Re Duck) · filed 1990-12-26(c)

Under analogous Supreme Court authority, the reference in certain statutes and rules to “a creditor” as the proper plaintiff in a dischargeability action does not preclude the filing of a class dis-chargeability action.

Section 523(c) permits creditors to pursue a dischargeability determination through a class action.

Rosario v. Livaditis (In Re Livaditis) · filed 1991-10-18(c)

Since nothing in the Bankruptcy Code indicates that Congress expressly barred a class action in § 523 proceedings, class dischargeability actions are permitted.

Section 523(c) does not bar class actions seeking a determination that debts are nondischargeable.

Lerch v. Iommazzo (In Re Iommazzo) · filed 1993-01-21(c)

This court concludes that the more persuasive view is that class actions are permitted by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7023 in adversary proceedings under Bankruptcy Code § 523(c).

Section 523(a)(1)(A) permits a surety that pays a debtor’s nondischargeable taxes to assert the taxing authority’s exception from discharge through subrogation.

In the Matter of Herbert W. FIELDS, Jr., Debtor. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. Herbert W. FIELDS, Jr · filed 1991-03-21(a)(1)(A)

Accordingly, we hold that Hartford, having paid Debtor’s taxes to the TABC, is subrogated to all the rights that the State of Texas had against Debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(1) permits a surety that paid nondischargeable taxes to assert the taxing authority’s exception from discharge against a debtor liable for those taxes.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Rose (In Re Rose) · filed 1992-04-21(a)(1)

From these findings, it may be concluded that, in accordance with § 509(a), Travelers may be subrogated to the rights of the Tennessee and Kentucky taxing authorities, including their right to assert § 523(a)(1).

Section 523(a) applies to debts of a person who has filed a bankruptcy case, so it does not permit a declaration that a nondebtor’s debt will be nondischargeable in a future case.

Transamerica Automotive Finance Corp. v. Artibee (In re PAL Nissan, Inc.) · filed 1991-04-29(a)

The Defendants correctly argue that Section 523(a) only covers instances when debts of a debtor shall be determined to be nondischargeable.

A § 523(a)(6) dischargeability claim becomes moot when the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed because there is no discharge from which to except the debt.

United States v. Moseley (In Re Moseley) · filed 1993-11-29(a)(6)

As a result of the voluntary dismissal of Debtors’ underlying case, the issue of the discharge-ability of a specific debt in adversary proceeding A-93-3081 and the issue of the discharge in general in adversary proceeding A-93-3097 is rendered moot. Due to the dismissal of Debtors’ underlying case, there is no longer any discharge from which a debt can be excepted nor is there a discharge to be denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) except debts arising from fraudulent representations and fiduciary defalcation from discharge.

Ruszkowski, Jr. v. Morgado · filed 2023-01-20(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

The Plaintiffs have established that no issue of material fact exists to be tried in this adversary proceeding and that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law that the debts owed to them by the Defendant are non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), and 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a) does not except this contingent contract debt from discharge because it falls within none of the listed exceptions.

D'Auria v. Solomine · filed 2008-05-13(a)

Section 523 (a) of title 11 of the United States Code lists several debts, which are excepted from the debts subject to automatic discharge set forth in the code. The debt in the present case does not fall within any of these exceptions.

Section 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(4), and (a)(6) except debts arising from specified forms of fraud, embezzlement or larceny, and willful and malicious injury from discharge.

Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Metzgar (In Re Metzgar) · filed 1991-05-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(4), (a)(6)

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the debt is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(2)(B), 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) except from discharge loan advances a bank officer knowingly obtained through actual fraud and embezzlement.

Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Fagan (In re Fagan) · filed 1991-06-13(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

Loan Number 1 is nondischargeable because the Debtor obtained these funds in knowing violation of federal law and regulations. Obtaining the money in this manner amounts to obtaining money by actual fraud and embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(2) and (a)(4) except debts based on actual fraud or fraud while acting in a fiduciary capacity from discharge.

Walters v. Sawyer (In Re Sawyer) · filed 1991-06-21(a)(2), (a)(4)

Lawrence Sawyer’s debt to Hubert Walters is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and § 523(a)(4) as based on both “actual fraud” and “fraud ... while acting in a fiduciary capacity”.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a trustee’s debt for defalcation from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for willful and malicious injury.

Duff v. Postell (In re Postell) · filed 1991-09-09(a)(4), (a)(6)

The findings set forth in the Order and Judgment along with the findings in the Auditor’s Report contain all of the elements necessary for a determination of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(4) as to defendant Richard Postell and under § 523(a)(6) as to defendant Kathy Postell.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B)(iv) leave a debt dischargeable when the debtor made no false representation or materially false written statement.

Chevy Chase Federal Savings Bank v. Matz (In re Matz) · filed 1991-12-13(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)(iv)

Because this Court upholds the Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion that appellee did not make a false representation or a materially false statement as defined in Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B)(iv) of the Bankruptcy Code, it need not reach the question of whether appellant reasonably relied upon appellee’s representation of her salary.

Section 523(a)(2) allows claims based on fraud or qualifying false statements to survive a summary judgment motion premised on a Chapter 7 discharge.

Torrence v. Murphy · filed 1993-02-23(a)(2)

So, inasmuch as the plaintiff has asserted claims based upon those exceptions to discharge listed at 11 U.S.C. § 523, the motion for summary judgment of John R. Murphy must be denied.

An indemnification debt arising from a creditor’s own negligence does not fall under § 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(6) merely because the debtor defrauded the underlying plaintiffs.

Century 21 Balfour Real Estate v. Menna (In Re Menna) · filed 1993-03-09(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

The state court ordered indemnification only on those claims arising out of Balfour’s liability to the Pawloskis on the negligence claim, and therefore the state court judgment is limited to negligence. ... Because Balfour’s claim does not fall squarely within one of the exceptions to dischargeability, summary judgment must be granted in favor of Menna.

Section 523 permits judgment on a creditor’s nondischargeability claim even after the debtor’s discharge has been denied under § 727.

Associated Grocers of Colorado, Inc. v. Horton (In Re Horton) · filed 1993-04-16

Entry of judgment and denial of discharge based on § 727 does not preclude entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff based on § 523.

Section 523 does not except a debt from discharge solely because it arises from a securities law violation; the creditor must prove an applicable exception such as § 523(a)(2)(A).

Lousberg, Kopp, Kutsunis & Weng, P.C. v. Bonnett (In re Bonnett) · filed 1993-06-29(a)(2)(A)

Here, just as in that analogous case, there is no provision in § 523 which specifically excepts debts arising from a securities law violation from the Debtors’ discharge. The FIRM’S claim against the Debtors will stand or fall based upon § 523. Therefore, as to Counts II, III, and IV, the Debtor’s motion should be allowed. However, the Debtor’s motion to dismiss as to Count V is denied. If the FIRM can prove the elements necessary to establish a violation of § 523(a)(2)(A) it will be entitled to have the debt declared nondischargeable.

The same conduct can fall under both § 523(a)(2)(A) for actual fraud and § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious conduct.

Matter of Stokes · filed 1993-07-12(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

In a comprehensive opinion, Stokes v. Ferris, 150 B.R. 388 (W.D.Tex.1992), the district court, in an appeal from the bankruptcy court, answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the same conduct can give rise to a cause of action under both section 523(a)(2)(A) and section 523(a)(6). See id. at 392. We affirm, essentially for the reasons stated, and the analysis made, by the district court.

Section 523(a) provides the sole grounds for denying dischargeability of a debt.

Waugh v. Eldridge (In Re Waugh) · filed 1994-03-22(a)

The grounds for denying dis-chargeability of a debt are found solely in section 523(a).

Section 523(a)’s listed exceptions to discharge cannot be expanded under § 105 to make a debt nondischargeable because the debtor failed to comply with § 521(2).

In Re Weir · filed 1994-10-18(a)

The problem is that no statute specifically authorizes a debt to be held nondisehargeable if the debtor fails to comply with section 521(2). Although the court is entitled to issue necessary and appropriate orders to implement the Bankruptcy Code under section 105, that provision is not a general grant of legislative powers to supplement the detailed list of nondischargeable debts specified at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

Section 523 does not imply an exception to discharge for pre-petition attorney retainer agreements based on policy concerns.

In Re Hessinger & Associates · filed 1996-01-22

Because § 523 of the Code defines so precisely the handful of debts which are not subject to discharge, the court declines to hold that further exceptions to discharge should be implied due to policy concerns.

Section 523 excepts from discharge debts arising from false pretenses under (a)(2)(A) and embezzlement under (a)(4).

Memorial Hospital v. Sarama (In Re Sarama) · filed 1996-02-29(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

As a result, the debt plus interest and costs is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Consequently, Memorial has established that the Debtor embezzled funds intended for but diverted from Memorial. Therefore, the debt plus interest and costs is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from a physician’s fraudulent misrepresentations, while subsection (a)(6) excepts a debt arising from intentional conduct substantially certain to injure the patient.

Abrahamson v. Doyan (In Re Doyan) · filed 1996-08-28(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Considering the above, the Court finds the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A) to be satisfied, and the debt owed pursuant to the final judgment is nondischargeable. ... As such, the debt owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the medical malpractice judgment is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) may except a debt from discharge for willful and malicious injury even when the conduct also falls under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Printy v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. · filed 1997-04-10(a)(6)

We hold that sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) are not mutually exclusive. It follows that the bankruptcy court did not err in using § 523(a)(6) as the section applicable to Printy’s conduct.

Section 523(a)(7) applies in Chapter 11 cases.

Henry v. United States (In re Henry) · filed 1997-04-28(a)(7)

Section 523(a)(7) applies to chapter 11 cases.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraud and justifiable reliance, while § 523(a)(6) requires proof of willful and malicious injury.

Norman v. Balint (In re Balint) · filed 1997-11-07(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Based upon a review of the record and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that Mr. Norman has failed to meet his burden of proof under Sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court therefore concludes that Mr. Norman’s prayer for relief must be DENIED.

A debt arising from a fiduciary’s breach of duty and willful and malicious conversion of the creditor’s property is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4) and (a)(6).

Holloway v. Roberts · filed 1998-02-02(a)(4), (a)(6)

Thus, in light of the bankruptcy court’s findings that Holloway breached his fiduciary duty to Roberts and willfully and maliciously converted her property2--findings that certainly are not clearly erroneous-- the obligation is non-dischargeable under both §§ 523(a)(4) and (6).

Section 523’s exceptions to discharge are construed in the debtor’s favor and strictly against the party seeking an exception.

In Re MacAgnone · filed 1998-07-14

Clearly, Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code should be liberally construed in favor of the Debtor and strictly against one who seeks to establish the exception.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) do not except a debt from discharge for an overdue rental car and its damage when fraudulent intent and willful, malicious injury are not shown.

C & J Rentals, Inc. v. Purdy (In Re Purdy) · filed 1999-03-08(a)(4), (a)(6)

The Court finds and concludes that the obligation owed by the Debtor to this Plaintiff is not a debt that is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) or (6) as being a debt for larceny, conversion or willful and malicious injury to the property of another.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) do not except a debt from discharge based on a former partner’s continued service of clients when the creditor fails to prove fraudulent intent or malicious injury.

Essenfeld v. Schultz (In Re Schultz) · filed 1999-08-11(a)(4), (a)(6)

The Court agrees with Judge Conrad’s findings that Essenfeld failed, as a matter of law, to prove that the debtor acted with fraudulent intent or malice when he continued to service his previous clients. ... Therefore, the Court affirms the decision of Judge Conrad dismissing the causes of action which seek to prevent the debtor from a bankruptcy discharge due to alleged violation of 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(6) and (a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require express findings on each of the twelve factors used to assess fraudulent intent.

Household Credit Services v. Ettell · filed 1999-08-24(a)(2)(A)

Although it would aid appellate review if the bankruptcy court explained its reasoning in greater detail, the bankruptcy court did not err in declining to articulate its specific analysis as to each of the twelve factors.

When assessing fraudulent intent under § 523(a)(2)(A), a bankruptcy court need not make express findings on each of the twelve Dougherty factors.

In Re Christopher W. Ettell · filed 1999-08-24(a)(2)(A)

Although it would aid appellate review if the bankruptcy court explained its reasoning in greater detail, the bankruptcy court did not err in declining to articulate its specific analysis as to each of the twelve factors.

Section 523(a)'s exceptions to discharge are subsumed by a denial of general discharge under § 727(a), making an appeal over a particular exception moot.

Cepelak v. Sears (In Re Sears) · filed 2000-03-28(a)

Since the granting of an exception to discharge under § 523(a) is subsumed within a denial of general discharge under § 727(a), the cross-appeal is mooted by our disposition of the Debtors’ appeal.

Sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) except debts arising from fraudulent conduct from discharge when the creditor meets the required burden of proof.

Martin v. Stoddard (In re Stoddard) · filed 2000-06-14(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

The Court then, after hearing all the evidence put forth by the Plaintiff, found that the Plaintiff had sustained his requisite burden of proof under the standards set forth in §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.